Journalist or Spy —

New Assange indictment adds 17 espionage charges

Enlarge/ Supporters of Julian Assange protest outside the Ecuadorian embassy as the WikiLeaks founder awaits a High Court hearing to determine whether he will be extradited to Sweden on sexual charges. Now, new US charges have been added to a previous indictment: 17 counts of espionage.

Share this story

Today, the Department of Justice filed a new indictment of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange with the US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia—adding 17 more charges atop the original hacking charge used to file for Assange's extradition from the United Kingdom. The new charges are all espionage-focused: conspiracy to receive, obtaining, and disclosure of "national defense information. Each of the 17 counts carries a potential prison sentence of up to 10 years.

In a statement announcing the filing, a Justice Department spokesperson said, "The superseding indictment alleges that Assange was complicit with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the US Army, in unlawfully obtaining and disclosing classified documents related to the national defense." The new counts allege, among other things, that Assange conspired with Manning to steal "national defense information," obtained that information from Manning, and "aided and abetted her in obtaining classified information with reason to believe that the information was to be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation."

In a Twitter post, a WikiLeaks spokesperson wrote, "This is madness. It is the end of national security journalism and the First Amendment."

The charges will no doubt raise First Amendment arguments, as the laws they are based upon have been largely untested in court in cases against public disclosure.

In the indictment delivered by the grand jury—the same grand jury that Chelsea Manning went to jail for refusing to testify before—the Justice Department asserted that "Assange and WikiLeaks have repeatedly sought, obtained, and disseminated information that the United States classified due to the serious risk that unauthorized disclosure could harm the national security of the United States. WikiLeaks' website explicitly solicited censored, otherwise restricted, and until September 2010, 'classified' materials."

The indictment calls out Assange's repeated solicitations of specific sensitive data, including both unclassified but non-public sources and explicitly classified data. Assange's "Most Wanted Leaks" were cited, which included:

Intellipedia—the intelligence community's shared database of open source intelligence maintained by the CIA Open Source Center;

"Assange intended the 'Most Wanted Leaks' list to encourage and cause individuals to illegally obtain and disclose protected information, including classified information, to WikiLeaks contrary to law," the indictment states.

The indictment asserts that Assange published classified documents that "contained the unredacted names of human sources who provided information to United States forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and to US State Department diplomats around the world," the Justice Department spokesperson said. "These human sources included local Afghans and Iraqis, journalists, religious leaders, human rights advocates, and political dissidents from repressive regimes." The indictment claims that Assange "created a grave and imminent risk that the innocent people he named would suffer serious physical harm and/or arbitrary detention."

The indictment even links WikiLeaks to Osama bin Laden and noted that the Taliban used WikiLeaks documents to hunt down informants working for the US military and Afghan government. When US Navy SEALs raided bin Laden's compound on May 2, 2011, the indictment states:

They collected a number of items of digital media, which included the following: (1) a letter from bin Laden to another member of the terrorist organization al-Qaeda in which bin Laden requested that the member gather the DoD material posted to WikiLeaks, (2) a letter from that same member of al-Qaeda to Bin Laden with information from the Afghanistan War Documents provided by Manning to WikiLeaks and released by WikiLeaks, and (3) Department of State information provided by Manning to WikiLeaks and released by WikiLeaks.

Assange is currently jailed in London, serving a sentence for breaching his bail while facing extradition to Sweden on sexual assault charges. Swedish authorities have also begun to seek Assange's extradition on some of the rape charges. The new indictment comes before the US has formally filed for Assange's extradition—which the US must do by June 11.

Share this story

Sean Gallagher
Sean is Ars Technica's IT and National Security Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland. Emailsean.gallagher@arstechnica.com//Twitter@thepacketrat

Say what you want. These indictments go to the heart of the U.S. case against Julian Assange: that he knowingly and recklessly sought and published information that jeopardized the lives and families of U.S. human intelligence assets.

go to the heart ofknowingly and recklesslysought and publishedetc..

My monthly Hollywood dose in a paragraph.

Maybe if members of those families were not involved in illegal wars, and wars rampant with war crimes, and conspiracies with corporations on the ground to take by force and Americanise state assets of 3rd party sovereign nations that there would be nothing to talk about.

Reading your words, it's difficult though to imagine that you understand that the real story is written in-betweeen the lines Hollywood pumps out for you.

Maybe if members of those families were not involved in illegal wars, and wars rampant with war crimes, and conspiracies with corporations on the ground to take by force and Americanise state assets of 3rd party sovereign nations that there would be nothing to talk about.

Or maybe if Julian Assange did what REAL reporters do and censor those details, we could have had the best of both worlds?

An individual does not need to be present in, a resident of, or a citizen of a country to commit a crime in that country. This isn't anything revolutionary or unique to American law. It's quite well established international law.

True, but there's one difference: the US doesn't extradite it's citizens under any circumstance, though expects everybody they want to be delivered to them.

So just on that note, I don't want anybody extradited to the US! It has to come both ways!

Say what you want. These indictments go to the heart of the U.S. case against Julian Assange: that he knowingly and recklessly sought and published information that jeopardized the lives and families of U.S. human intelligence assets.

This.

People hold up Snowden as a hero of disclosure, but let's face it, Snowden knew Wikileaks was likely a Russian Propaganda Organization when he did is thing. It's telling that Manning didn't, because she wasn't "connected" to the intel community when she grabbed her stuff.

Snowden is on the record stating that he chose Greenwald and Poitras to leak to because he felt that the documents to be disclosed to the public should be curated by professionals rather than published in their entirety.

Say what you want. These indictments go to the heart of the U.S. case against Julian Assange: that he knowingly and recklessly sought and published information that jeopardized the lives and families of U.S. human intelligence assets.

This.

People hold up Snowden as a hero of disclosure, but let's face it, Snowden knew Wikileaks was likely a Russian Propaganda Organization when he did is thing. It's telling that Manning didn't, because she wasn't "connected" to the intel community when she grabbed her stuff.

Snowden is on the record stating that he chose Greenwald and Poitras to leak to because he felt that the documents to be disclosed to the public should be curated by professionals rather than published in their entirety.

But yet, for all of Snowden's trouble and care:- the US govt has declared him to be a spy- threatened to shoot down a plane with a foreign president if Snowden was onboard- all the newspapers who published the "curated" information...threw him under the bus

In this climate, folks still think that prosecuting whistleblowers and publishers will be a net positive for our societies? Delusions....

Say what you want. These indictments go to the heart of the U.S. case against Julian Assange: that he knowingly and recklessly sought and published information that jeopardized the lives and families of U.S. human intelligence assets.

This.

People hold up Snowden as a hero of disclosure, but let's face it, Snowden knew Wikileaks was likely a Russian Propaganda Organization when he did is thing. It's telling that Manning didn't, because she wasn't "connected" to the intel community when she grabbed her stuff.

It's been an open secret in the intel community that Wikileak was compromised (whether from the beginning or not is arguable) by the Russians even before the time Snowden stole classified information and released it through media sites. Manning's actions were after that.

Granted, people aren't going to accept that as "proof", but it's not offered as such. Just show me anything ever released on Wikileaks that harmed anyone OTHER than someone in the Western Alliance. That's proof enough, though inside intel indicates there are other factors involved (connections between Assange and the Russians, specifically).

Some might think Assange was just an idiot, but he was a useful idiot for the Russians. He deserves every awful thing that comes his way.

Even if the experts in the intelligence community knew that Wikileaks was compromised by the Russians, that doesn’t mean that low level IT staff like Snowden would know. We can easily see now that Wikileaks is controlled by the Russians, but it may not have been obvious to Snowden at the time. The pattern of Wikileaks only releasing information on western governments has become much more clear since the Snowden leak.

I'm not so sure about the 1st Amendment issues, but how does the US have jurisdiction over what an Australian national does outside the US?

Because the actual alleged crimes occurred under US Jurisdiction - by Manning. Being an accessory/Inciting/assisting someone to commit a crime is still a crime.

Manning is a whistleblower.

If you throw whistleblowers in jail and the reporters who work with them too, you can kiss democracy goodbye.

Jullian Assange is not a Reporter. He is a publisher.

Even if he was a reporter, being a reporter does not give you carte blanche to commit crimes.

The facts are Manning has apparently broken the law in what whistleblowing they did, how they got their information, etc.

Turns out that hacking is still illegal even if you are a whistleblower, or a "reporter".

Well that's the constitutional question isn't it? Is our constitution honoured in its intention, if the executive branch can throw whistleblowers and publishers in the gulag on technicalities of what they did in order to blow the whistle?

Or it would be a constitutional question, except these guys will never see a day in an open court. They will be in military prisons then put before a military judge in a kabuki process where their chances of winning are the same 0.0000 % that it would be in North Korea or any of the countries we claim are hellholes of injustice...

Assange won't be going to a military prison or a military court. You're being ridiculous.

I'm not so sure about the 1st Amendment issues, but how does the US have jurisdiction over what an Australian national does outside the US?

Because the actual alleged crimes occurred under US Jurisdiction - by Manning. Being an accessory/Inciting/assisting someone to commit a crime is still a crime.

Manning is a whistleblower.

If you throw whistleblowers in jail and the reporters who work with them too, you can kiss democracy goodbye.

Jullian Assange is not a Reporter. He is a publisher.

Even if he was a reporter, being a reporter does not give you carte blanche to commit crimes.

The facts are Manning has apparently broken the law in what whistleblowing they did, how they got their information, etc.

Turns out that hacking is still illegal even if you are a whistleblower, or a "reporter".

Well that's the constitutional question isn't it? Is our constitution honoured in its intention, if the executive branch can throw whistleblowers and publishers in the gulag on technicalities of what they did in order to blow the whistle?

Where would you like to draw the line? If I and a group of "Shadowrunners" break into the pentagon to steal the blue book files, and then after we're detected shoot our way out killing 5, should we be protected from the obvious criminal charges that would follow simply because we asked some guy with a website to publish it for us?

Maybe if members of those families were not involved in illegal wars, and wars rampant with war crimes, and conspiracies with corporations on the ground to take by force and Americanise state assets of 3rd party sovereign nations that there would be nothing to talk about.

Or maybe if Julian Assange did what REAL reporters do and censor those details, we could have had the best of both worlds?

Real reporters censor? Tell me more!

Yes. They censor names of innocents and other people who are not the subject of the story.

I'm not so sure about the 1st Amendment issues, but how does the US have jurisdiction over what an Australian national does outside the US?

Because the actual alleged crimes occurred under US Jurisdiction - by Manning. Being an accessory/Inciting/assisting someone to commit a crime is still a crime.

Manning is a whistleblower.

If you throw whistleblowers in jail and the reporters who work with them too, you can kiss democracy goodbye.

Jullian Assange is not a Reporter. He is a publisher.

Even if he was a reporter, being a reporter does not give you carte blanche to commit crimes.

The facts are Manning has apparently broken the law in what whistleblowing they did, how they got their information, etc.

Turns out that hacking is still illegal even if you are a whistleblower, or a "reporter".

Well that's the constitutional question isn't it? Is our constitution honoured in its intention, if the executive branch can throw whistleblowers and publishers in the gulag on technicalities of what they did in order to blow the whistle?

Where would you like to draw the line? If I and a group of "Shadowrunners" break into the pentagon to steal the blue book files, and then after we're detected shoot our way out killing 5, should we be protected from the obvious criminal charges that would follow simply because we asked some guy with a website to publish it for us?

I''m not sure where your cockamamie fantasy is heading.

The reality before us is that Bradley Manning came to Assange wishing to blow the whislte on war crimes committed by the state and its agents. War crimes. Murder. By the state. Many. With impunity.

Proceed from that reality - and let us know how the constitutional NEED for whistleblowing can EFFECTIVELY be exercised without breaking any eggs.

It's okay if we can get an open declaration that whistleblowing of such is not intended by the constitution. Then at least we are all on the same page.

But at the moment we have some sort of pharisee practice going on of pointing at minor details, while ignoring the actual overarching issue. Is it okay for the state to commit war crimes. And if it does, how are we going to actually be informed so we can change this? Or do we no longer wish to bother with limits as to what the state can do in our name?

Maybe if members of those families were not involved in illegal wars, and wars rampant with war crimes, and conspiracies with corporations on the ground to take by force and Americanise state assets of 3rd party sovereign nations that there would be nothing to talk about.

Or maybe if Julian Assange did what REAL reporters do and censor those details, we could have had the best of both worlds?

Real reporters censor? Tell me more!

Yes. They censor names of innocents and other people who are not the subject of the story.

Great distinction!

Wikileaks was publishing the Iraq war log documents after redacting the names of individuals in the field until the Guardian journalist Luke Harding published the key to the encryptedfiles in his book about the leaks. It was Harding that exposed the 'innocents and other people who are not the subject of the story'

The reality before us is that Bradley Manning came to Assange wishing to blow the whislte on war crimes committed by the state and its agents. War crimes. Murder. By the state. Many. With impunity.

Proceed from that reality - and let us know how the constitutional NEED for whistleblowing can EFFECTIVELY be exercised without breaking any eggs.

It's okay if we can get an open declaration that whistleblowing of such is not intended by the constitution. Then at least we are all on the same page.

But at the moment we have some sort of pharisee practice going on of pointing at minor details, while ignoring the actual overarching issue. Is it okay for the state to commit war crimes. And if it does, how are we going to actually be informed so we can change this? Or do we no longer wish to bother with limits as to what the state can do in our name?

Compare and contrast Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange.

By the time Snowden's documents got to Greenwald, the wrongdoing (e.g. the taking of documents) was already done. Greenwald had no role in it, neither instructing Snowden to do so or providing material support in furtherance of the taking of documents. He is in the clear.

Chelsea Manning reached out to Assange wishing to be a whistle-blower. He instructed her on the taking of documents and property and then attempted to crack the password for encrypted data on a government computer (e.g. material support). Now, he is in trouble.

As I said, the distinction isn't really subtle.

[EDIT] Have I ever mentioned I hate the 6 nested quote rule on these forums?

I'm not so sure about the 1st Amendment issues, but how does the US have jurisdiction over what an Australian national does outside the US?

Because the actual alleged crimes occurred under US Jurisdiction - by Manning. Being an accessory/Inciting/assisting someone to commit a crime is still a crime.

Manning is a whistleblower.

If you throw whistleblowers in jail and the reporters who work with them too, you can kiss democracy goodbye.

Jullian Assange is not a Reporter. He is a publisher.

Even if he was a reporter, being a reporter does not give you carte blanche to commit crimes.

The facts are Manning has apparently broken the law in what whistleblowing they did, how they got their information, etc.

Turns out that hacking is still illegal even if you are a whistleblower, or a "reporter".

Well that's the constitutional question isn't it? Is our constitution honoured in its intention, if the executive branch can throw whistleblowers and publishers in the gulag on technicalities of what they did in order to blow the whistle?

Where would you like to draw the line? If I and a group of "Shadowrunners" break into the pentagon to steal the blue book files, and then after we're detected shoot our way out killing 5, should we be protected from the obvious criminal charges that would follow simply because we asked some guy with a website to publish it for us?

This is a great thought experiment!

At a guess I'd say you could charge the Shadowrunners with homicide, and the publisher with conspiracy to commit.

Also! You could still publish all the secret government documents without having to worry about the 1st Amendment implications.

Now the hypothetical citizens of the hypothetical nation would be able to make up their own minds about how their government operates!

The reality before us is that Bradley Manning came to Assange wishing to blow the whislte on war crimes committed by the state and its agents. War crimes. Murder. By the state. Many. With impunity.

Proceed from that reality - and let us know how the constitutional NEED for whistleblowing can EFFECTIVELY be exercised without breaking any eggs.

It's okay if we can get an open declaration that whistleblowing of such is not intended by the constitution. Then at least we are all on the same page.

But at the moment we have some sort of pharisee practice going on of pointing at minor details, while ignoring the actual overarching issue. Is it okay for the state to commit war crimes. And if it does, how are we going to actually be informed so we can change this? Or do we no longer wish to bother with limits as to what the state can do in our name?

Compare and contrast Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange.

By the time Snowden's documents got to Greenwald, the wrongdoing (e.g. the taking of documents) was already done. Greenwald had no role in it, neither instructing Snowden to do so or providing material support in furtherance of the taking of documents. He is in the clear.

Chelsea Manning reached out to Assange wishing to be a whistle-blower. He instructed her on the taking of documents and property and then attempted to crack the password for encrypted data on a government computer (e.g. material support). Now, he is in trouble.

As I said, the distinction isn't really subtle.

[EDIT] Have I ever mentioned I hate the 6 nested quote rule on these forums?

You're making a distinction, sure. That's your idea in your own head.

Question I am asking and we need answered as a nation in my post above. It's not in answered by your statement, which really follows the pharisee approach (eg. "material support" - for what? whistleblowing?) and is not useful to answer the larger questions about our constitution and intentions as a nation.

These are vital questions for the country and its going to take Jesus-level holistic thinking to solve them, not pharisee level minutae pecking.

The reality before us is that Bradley Manning came to Assange wishing to blow the whislte on war crimes committed by the state and its agents. War crimes. Murder. By the state. Many. With impunity.

Proceed from that reality - and let us know how the constitutional NEED for whistleblowing can EFFECTIVELY be exercised without breaking any eggs.

Assange was not a mere conduit for the information. He solicited specific information and assisted/aided people in getting it and covering their tracks.

Constitutional protection is for those who are conduits for information. It doesn't protect those who aid/assist/incite others in breaking the law.

Constitutional protection is given to the democratic necessity for getting the electorate information that is materially in public interest. If govt is killing innocent bystanders with impunity in our name, do we need to know?

The reality before us is that Bradley Manning came to Assange wishing to blow the whislte on war crimes committed by the state and its agents. War crimes. Murder. By the state. Many. With impunity.

Proceed from that reality - and let us know how the constitutional NEED for whistleblowing can EFFECTIVELY be exercised without breaking any eggs.

It's okay if we can get an open declaration that whistleblowing of such is not intended by the constitution. Then at least we are all on the same page.

But at the moment we have some sort of pharisee practice going on of pointing at minor details, while ignoring the actual overarching issue. Is it okay for the state to commit war crimes. And if it does, how are we going to actually be informed so we can change this? Or do we no longer wish to bother with limits as to what the state can do in our name?

Compare and contrast Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange.

By the time Snowden's documents got to Greenwald, the wrongdoing (e.g. the taking of documents) was already done. Greenwald had no role in it, neither instructing Snowden to do so or providing material support in furtherance of the taking of documents. He is in the clear.

Chelsea Manning reached out to Assange wishing to be a whistle-blower. He instructed her on the taking of documents and property and then attempted to crack the password for encrypted data on a government computer (e.g. material support). Now, he is in trouble.

As I said, the distinction isn't really subtle.

[EDIT] Have I ever mentioned I hate the 6 nested quote rule on these forums?

You're making a distinction, sure. That's your idea in your own head.

Question I am asking and we need answered as a nation in my post above. It's not in answered by your statement, which really follows the pharisee approach (eg. "material support" - for what? whistleblowing?) and is not useful to answer the larger questions about our constitution and intentions as a nation.

These are vital questions for the country and its going to take Jesus-level holistic thinking to solve them, not pharisee level minutae pecking.

Just as strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government, Jesus and the Bible is no basis for interpretation of Constitutional and Criminal law.

Because guess what people in law love? Minutiae and tiny distinctions!

Supporters of Julian Assange protest outside the Ecuadorian embassy as the WikiLeaks founder awaits a High Court hearing to determine whether he will be extradited to Sweden on sexual charges.

What the hell is this? "Sexual" charges?

I believe the word you are looking for is "rape."

What constitutes rape is different in many countries. From what I remember at least one of the girls he had had sex with the night prior, and in the morning had come down without any pants on and rubbed up against her, she didn't like that and that is what at least one of the sexual assault charges is related to. Personally I think that's stupid, who care if someone is made to feel uncomfortable or upset, it's part of life.

That's as may be, but that's not the rape accusation. It would still count as sexual assault in most jurisdictions, though.

The rape accusation comes from a woman who woke up to find him having unprotected sex with her. Now, in this situation, people like to say "Well, she already agreed to have sex with him, so what's the problem?", but she didn't agree to let him penetrating her while she was asleep, and she had only previously given consent to sex on the agreed condition that he wear a condom.

Some people have claimed this is a strange Swedish-specific definition of rape, but if you look at it - he initiated sexual activity when she was unable to give consent (she was asleep), and knowingly violated the condition she had put on her previous consent (that he wear a condom). That sounds an awful lot like rape. If for some reason you're still unconvinced, can you at least admit it's not something a reasonable person would do?

It is also a sexual assault in the jurisdiction I practice in, and would be frankly shocked if it wasnt in all 49 other states as well. It's pretty well settled, or so I thought until I've seen some posts over this Assange saga, that if a person is in a state that makes it impossible for them to consent to sexual contact, any sexual contact with that person is a crime.

"Your honor, yes my client snuck into that apartment and then proceeded to begin having sex with the sleeping woman. However you heard from the woman herself, she hadn't had a drop of alcohol or used any drugs prior to going to bed, and he stopped immediately after she screamed. So other than an unlawful trespass, no crime was committed." (I know this isn't your position but I'm addressing the people who you were referring to.)

The reality before us is that Bradley Manning came to Assange wishing to blow the whislte on war crimes committed by the state and its agents. War crimes. Murder. By the state. Many. With impunity.

Proceed from that reality - and let us know how the constitutional NEED for whistleblowing can EFFECTIVELY be exercised without breaking any eggs.

Assange was not a mere conduit for the information. He solicited specific information and assisted/aided people in getting it and covering their tracks.

Constitutional protection is for those who are conduits for information. It doesn't protect those who aid/assist/incite others in breaking the law.

Constitutional protection is given to the democratic necessity for getting the electorate information that is materially in public interest. If govt is killing innocent bystanders with impunity in our name, do we need to know?

Seek enlightenment above, not down in the dirt.

So if I decide its in the public interest for me to break into your house and put any document I find therein on a website, you don't believe I should face any legal consequences.

Interesting.

Also interesting is that not so long ago you didn't care about the innocent bystanders targeted by groups like the Taliban because of their Family members working with the US.

I'm not so sure about the 1st Amendment issues, but how does the US have jurisdiction over what an Australian national does outside the US?

They dont.

Most likely what they have done is dictated to Australia to throw their own citizen under the bus, by defining this news gathering activity as "espionage" and then dictating that Australia as a NATO defense partner of the US, is obligated to assist them in apprehending this person and therefore has to waive their national rights to protecting their own citizen.

The same "NATO espionage" claim would be how they are leaning on Britain and Sweden as well.

The reality before us is that Bradley Manning came to Assange wishing to blow the whislte on war crimes committed by the state and its agents. War crimes. Murder. By the state. Many. With impunity.

Proceed from that reality - and let us know how the constitutional NEED for whistleblowing can EFFECTIVELY be exercised without breaking any eggs.

Assange was not a mere conduit for the information. He solicited specific information and assisted/aided people in getting it and covering their tracks.

Constitutional protection is for those who are conduits for information. It doesn't protect those who aid/assist/incite others in breaking the law.

Constitutional protection is given to the democratic necessity for getting the electorate information that is materially in public interest. If govt is killing innocent bystanders with impunity in our name, do we need to know?

Seek enlightenment above, not down in the dirt.

So if I decide its in the public interest for me to break into your house and put any document I find therein on a website, you don't believe I should face any legal consequences.

There is a major distinction between obtaining evidence of government war crimes and home invasion. Get a better analogy.

He hid in an embassy for 7 years against imaginary charges (the US charges), did everything he could to help elect the one person that would prosecute want to prosecute him.

This is a mess of entirely his own making.

I don’t mind him get some karma but the precedents which could be set, especially with the authoritarian tendencies of the modern Republican Party, make me shudder. There’s no way this wouldn’t be used to intimidate real journalists.

This.

If they hadn't included the charges for gathering and publishing classified data, there would be no concern for the 1A. And yes, the Pentagon Papers, et al, are perfect examples of this. The government tried to bring charges against the NYT if they published it, so the WaPo went ahead and published.

Real journalists, left, right or middle, no matter how they feel about Assange, will stand in agreement that this portion of the charges sets a very chilling precedent for actual journalism protected by the 1A. Freedom of the press was enacted for a very specific reason - a free press holds the government accountable to/for the people.

All the more reason for us to send him to Sweden. These crimes were never committed when he was in the US or even in the US. Who the fuck does Trump imagine he is ? World policeman ?

An individual does not need to be present in, a resident of, or a citizen of a country to commit a crime in that country. This isn't anything revolutionary or unique to American law. It's quite well established international law.

I can imagine many Americans breaking laws of Saudi Arabia, China and other countries.

You ok with extraditing them, yeah?

There is no "international law" here. Only Americans trying to apply their own laws across the world.

Please, not this argument again.

Every extradition treaty requires extraditable offenses to be offenses in both jurisdictions. So no country would have extradited women for driving to Saudi Arabia. They wouldn't even do that if Saudi Arabia accused them of driving in Saudi Arabia. Same with not covering up, use of alcohol, insulting the prophet, you name it.

Every treaty also requires a certain seriousness of the offense (as a minimal sentence) but from what I make of the texts that means serious in the extraditing country. So the US haveing generally harsher prison sentences than most of Europe for example doesn't mean they get to ask for extradition on more offenses.

And just today (not on this forum) I also saw the argument "What Assange is accused of isn't even rape". That doesn't matter for these treaties as well. Even if it were 'only' sexual assault in England, that too is punishable and the sentence meets the minimum for extradition. The exact charge being different is irrelevant.

I don;t know about other countries, but for my own my government has a website up with all our extradition treaties.

I love how the first result is from may 28, 1897. (With Italy, it was valid until December 30, 1993 but in the end only for Aruba)

Maybe a good idea for some of the commenters here to read up on them before they make assumptions that get them into trouble.

What I am curious about is how they will prove the rape. There are as far as we know two cases of he said she said. I now in my country multiple independent similar accusations can also be used to build a case. Which is why going public with an accusation can be counterproductive for getting a conviction. But is two cases enough for beyond reasonable doubt. I know that if I was on a jury and what we've seen so far is only what made the newspapers, I would not find that convincing beyond reasonable doubt. I sincerely hope that Sweden had some more evidence they have not released before accusing someone of rape.

I'm not so sure about the 1st Amendment issues, but how does the US have jurisdiction over what an Australian national does outside the US?

They dont.

Most likely what they have done is dictated to Australia to throw their own citizen under the bus, by defining this news gathering activity as "espionage" and then dictating that Australia as a NATO defense partner of the US

Australia is not a member of NATO. Do I have to buy you a world map to explain why?

The reality before us is that Bradley Manning came to Assange wishing to blow the whislte on war crimes committed by the state and its agents. War crimes. Murder. By the state. Many. With impunity.

Proceed from that reality - and let us know how the constitutional NEED for whistleblowing can EFFECTIVELY be exercised without breaking any eggs.

Assange was not a mere conduit for the information. He solicited specific information and assisted/aided people in getting it and covering their tracks.

Constitutional protection is for those who are conduits for information. It doesn't protect those who aid/assist/incite others in breaking the law.

Constitutional protection is given to the democratic necessity for getting the electorate information that is materially in public interest. If govt is killing innocent bystanders with impunity in our name, do we need to know?

Seek enlightenment above, not down in the dirt.

So if I decide its in the public interest for me to break into your house and put any document I find therein on a website, you don't believe I should face any legal consequences.

There is a major distinction between obtaining evidence of government war crimes and home invasion. Get a better analogy.

So If I believed there was evidence of War Crimes in your house, I would be justified in invading your home and publishing all documents I found there?

Also Your comment fails from your inability to identify which part is the motivation, and which part is the act.

The reality before us is that Bradley Manning came to Assange wishing to blow the whislte on war crimes committed by the state and its agents. War crimes. Murder. By the state. Many. With impunity.

Proceed from that reality - and let us know how the constitutional NEED for whistleblowing can EFFECTIVELY be exercised without breaking any eggs.

It's okay if we can get an open declaration that whistleblowing of such is not intended by the constitution. Then at least we are all on the same page.

But at the moment we have some sort of pharisee practice going on of pointing at minor details, while ignoring the actual overarching issue. Is it okay for the state to commit war crimes. And if it does, how are we going to actually be informed so we can change this? Or do we no longer wish to bother with limits as to what the state can do in our name?

Compare and contrast Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange.

By the time Snowden's documents got to Greenwald, the wrongdoing (e.g. the taking of documents) was already done. Greenwald had no role in it, neither instructing Snowden to do so or providing material support in furtherance of the taking of documents. He is in the clear.

Chelsea Manning reached out to Assange wishing to be a whistle-blower. He instructed her on the taking of documents and property and then attempted to crack the password for encrypted data on a government computer (e.g. material support). Now, he is in trouble.

As I said, the distinction isn't really subtle.

[EDIT] Have I ever mentioned I hate the 6 nested quote rule on these forums?

Agree. Assange entered into an actual conspiracy to commit a crime by assisting Manning in hacking into government computers. Had the current DOJ stuck to their original charges for this real and specific crime, there would be no controversy. Attempting to try someone for publishing classified information is entirely antithetical to freedom of the press.

Say what you want. These indictments go to the heart of the U.S. case against Julian Assange: that he knowingly and recklessly sought and published information that jeopardized the lives and families of U.S. human intelligence assets.

This.

People hold up Snowden as a hero of disclosure, but let's face it, Snowden knew Wikileaks was likely a Russian Propaganda Organization when he did is thing. It's telling that Manning didn't, because she wasn't "connected" to the intel community when she grabbed her stuff.

Snowden is on the record stating that he chose Greenwald and Poitras to leak to because he felt that the documents to be disclosed to the public should be curated by professionals rather than published in their entirety.

But yet, for all of Snowden's trouble and care:- the US govt has declared him to be a spy- threatened to shoot down a plane with a foreign president if Snowden was onboard- all the newspapers who published the "curated" information...threw him under the bus

In this climate, folks still think that prosecuting whistleblowers and publishers will be a net positive for our societies? Delusions....

Oh to be sure!

I think it speaks to Wikileaks principles that even though Snowden didn't come to them with the leaks they were the ones to help him evacuate from Hong Kong and safe from the US gulags.

The reality before us is that Bradley Manning came to Assange wishing to blow the whislte on war crimes committed by the state and its agents. War crimes. Murder. By the state. Many. With impunity.

Proceed from that reality - and let us know how the constitutional NEED for whistleblowing can EFFECTIVELY be exercised without breaking any eggs.

Assange was not a mere conduit for the information. He solicited specific information and assisted/aided people in getting it and covering their tracks.

Constitutional protection is for those who are conduits for information. It doesn't protect those who aid/assist/incite others in breaking the law.

Constitutional protection is given to the democratic necessity for getting the electorate information that is materially in public interest. If govt is killing innocent bystanders with impunity in our name, do we need to know?

Seek enlightenment above, not down in the dirt.

So if I decide its in the public interest for me to break into your house and put any document I find therein on a website, you don't believe I should face any legal consequences.

There is a major distinction between obtaining evidence of government war crimes and home invasion. Get a better analogy.

Not to mention we had this discussion before in a previous Assange thread. Different jurisdictions deal with this differently. In an inquisitorial system the answer could very well be that after investigation a journalist breaking into your house is not charged if there is a finding that the public interest outweighed the impact of the B&E. In an avdversial system you would be charged and it would be left to the court/jury.

The reality before us is that Bradley Manning came to Assange wishing to blow the whislte on war crimes committed by the state and its agents. War crimes. Murder. By the state. Many. With impunity.

Proceed from that reality - and let us know how the constitutional NEED for whistleblowing can EFFECTIVELY be exercised without breaking any eggs.

Assange was not a mere conduit for the information. He solicited specific information and assisted/aided people in getting it and covering their tracks.

Constitutional protection is for those who are conduits for information. It doesn't protect those who aid/assist/incite others in breaking the law.

Constitutional protection is given to the democratic necessity for getting the electorate information that is materially in public interest. If govt is killing innocent bystanders with impunity in our name, do we need to know?

Seek enlightenment above, not down in the dirt.

So if I decide its in the public interest for me to break into your house and put any document I find therein on a website, you don't believe I should face any legal consequences.

There is a major distinction between obtaining evidence of government war crimes and home invasion. Get a better analogy.

So If I believed there was evidence of War Crimes in your house, I would be justified in invading your home and publishing all documents I found there?

Also Your comment fails from your inability to identify which part is the motivation, and which part is the act.

Sure! I'd question your sanity [the whistleblower in your analogy] and that of your publisher [also you in your analogy] for thinking that I, Smack-fu Master In Training would have evidence for war crimes in my house though.

But hey, there are places for lunatics who fantasize that some keyboard commentator has evidence for warcrimes in his apartment. The meds are pretty fun, I hear.

Sure! I'd question your sanity [the whistleblower in your analogy] and that of your publisher [also you in your analogy] for thinking that I, Smack-fu Master In Training would have evidence for war crimes in my house though.

The reality before us is that Bradley Manning came to Assange wishing to blow the whislte on war crimes committed by the state and its agents. War crimes. Murder. By the state. Many. With impunity.

Proceed from that reality - and let us know how the constitutional NEED for whistleblowing can EFFECTIVELY be exercised without breaking any eggs.

Assange was not a mere conduit for the information. He solicited specific information and assisted/aided people in getting it and covering their tracks.

Constitutional protection is for those who are conduits for information. It doesn't protect those who aid/assist/incite others in breaking the law.

Constitutional protection is given to the democratic necessity for getting the electorate information that is materially in public interest. If govt is killing innocent bystanders with impunity in our name, do we need to know?

Seek enlightenment above, not down in the dirt.

So if I decide its in the public interest for me to break into your house and put any document I find therein on a website, you don't believe I should face any legal consequences.

There is a major distinction between obtaining evidence of government war crimes and home invasion. Get a better analogy.

Not to mention we had this discussion before in a previous Assange thread.

I've found that in every Assange comment thread we're always at square one. The same arguments and awful analogies get trotted out each time. Hence my tone in the majority of my comments.

Sure! I'd question your sanity [the whistleblower in your analogy] and that of your publisher [also you in your analogy] for thinking that I, Smack-fu Master In Training would have evidence for war crimes in my house though.

Sane or not, you're the one who's decided it's legal for me to do so.

If you're mentally incompetant enough to think that I'm housing evidence of war crimes in my domicile and decide to break into it, there's very little I can legally do to stop you from doing so, I'm a wimp with no security service and there's no right to bear arms here.

ETA: It would totally rock if I could write all the laws in my jurisdiction! But I'm pretty sure at least a few people would object to my ban Pogs

What constitutes rape is different in many countries. From what I remember at least one of the girls he had had sex with the night prior, and in the morning had come down without any pants on and rubbed up against her, she didn't like that and that is what at least one of the sexual assault charges is related to. Personally I think that's stupid, who care if someone is made to feel uncomfortable or upset, it's part of life.

"Who cares about sexual assault?" is certainly one way to exist as a human.

Not a good one, mind you. In fact it's quite a shitty way to be a human. But you, sir, certainly exist.